Americans United - Religion and politicshttp://www.au.org/tags/religion-and-politics
enA Critic’s Critique: Roger Ebert Gave ‘Two Thumbs Up’ To The Church-State Wallhttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-critic-s-critique-roger-ebert-gave-two-thumbs-up-to-the-church-state-wall
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Film critic Roger Ebert was a great defender of the separation of church and state. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>I’ll admit it: I enjoy reading scathing reviews of books and films. Critics are called that for a reason. When it’s time to be critical, some of them really know how to put it out there.</p><p>Consider Roger Ebert. The long-time movie reviewer for the Chicago <em>Sun-Times</em> didn’t hold back when he was forced to sit through a bad film.</p><p>Here he is commenting on a 1987 romantic comedy called “One Woman Or Two”: “Add it all up, and what you've got here is a waste of good electricity. I'm not talking about the electricity between the actors. I'm talking about the current to the projector.”</p><p>When the sci-fi non-epic “Battlefield Earth” was released in 2000, Ebert was not impressed. “’Battlefield Earth’ is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time,” he wrote. “It’s not merely bad; it’s unpleasant in a hostile way.”</p><p>Ebert, who <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/showbiz/roger-ebert-obituary/index.html">died yesterday</a> at age 70 after a battle with cancer, was, thanks to his frequent TV appearances, one of the most famous film critics in the nation. But here’s something you might not have known about him: He was a staunch defender of church-state separation.</p><p>Aside from his film reviews, Ebert wrote columns about other topics as well. Last year in an essay titled “Don’t tear down that wall!,” <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/08/tear_down_that_wall.html">he lamented</a> that too many Americans don’t support church-state separation.</p><p>Ebert was particularly dismayed to see religiously motivated attacks on reproductive rights.</p><p>“I do not propose to discuss the issues of abortion, birth control and in vitro fertilization,” he wrote. “I’m more concerned with those who would pass laws enforcing their religious beliefs. They apparently see no conflict between the laws they propose and the separation of Church and State.</p><p>“What the First Amendment provides is that each and every American is entitled to follow the teachings of the church of their choice, or for that matter no church at all,” Ebert continued. “What if your beliefs, or your church, permit abortion or in vitro fertilization? Are you now to become a criminal? The problem with such laws is that they would legislate the personal religious beliefs of the candidates. The law is well-advised to stand free of such beliefs.”</p><p>In <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/12/new_agers_and_creationists_sho.html">another column</a>, Ebert blasted candidates who mix their religious and political beliefs like a tossed salad – especially biblical creationists.</p><p>“I adamantly support the right of any candidate to profess any faith, or none,” Ebert wrote. He then added, “We can have no patience with a chief executive who professes the value of ancient superstitions in the forming of policy. My only purpose today is to state early and often that if a Presidential candidate believes early humans used saddles to ride on the backs of dinosaurs, as they are depicted at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, that candidate should not be elected President.”</p><p>Here’s Ebert, a graduate of Catholic schools, on <a href="http://surge.ods.org/idle_religion/publicprayer.htm">prayer in schools</a>: “This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer – vertical and horizontal. I don’t have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.”</p><p>I’m going to miss Ebert’s film reviews – the positive ones and the scathing ones – and I’m going to miss his insightful commentary on church-state issues. It’s some comfort to know that he left behind an impressive body of work that will be read for many years to come.</p><p>To that, I say, “Two thumbs up!” </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/responding-common-attacks-church-state-separation">Responding to Common Attacks on Church-State Separation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-ebert">Roger Ebert</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/creation-museum">Creation Museum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/creationism">creationism</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/school-prayer">School Prayer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/battlefield-earth">Battlefield Earth</a></span></div></div>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:51:02 +0000Rob Boston8264 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-critic-s-critique-roger-ebert-gave-two-thumbs-up-to-the-church-state-wall#commentsAmen To Pastor Jeffress: Why The Dallas Bigot Is Doing Us All A Servicehttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/amen-to-pastor-jeffress-why-the-dallas-bigot-is-doing-us-all-a-service
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">If a candidate is committed to church-state separation, you don’t have to worry much about whether he nods toward Rome, Mecca or Salt Lake City when he prays.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The Rev. Robert Jeffress just won’t shut up, and for that, I thank him.</p>
<p>You know Jeffress, the Texas preacher who infamously endorsed “ born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ” Rick Perry while denouncing Mitt Romney as a member of the Mormon “cult.” Since his debut on the national stage at the <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2011/11/inside-the-values-voter.html?utm_source=au%2Bhomepage&amp;utm_medium=homepage%2Bbanner&amp;utm_campaign=Featured%2Bon%20homepage">Values Voter Summit</a>, Jeffress has added Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism to his list of “false” religions, and I’m sure it won’t be long before Zoroastrianism makes the grade as well.</p>
<p>The pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas has been all over the media in recent days, spreading his venomous take on religion and politics. Today he appears <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-jeffress-why-a-candidates-faith-matters/2011/10/18/gIQAErFEvL_story.html">on the op-ed page</a> of <em>The Washington Post </em>with a screed on “Why a candidate’s faith matters.”</p>
<p>“[O]ur religious beliefs,” he says, “define the very essence of who we are” and so evangelicals should vote in the GOP primary for a man who is “both a competent leader and a committed Christian.” If Romney gets the Republican nod, he may have to vote for him, but he hopes it doesn’t come to that.</p>
<p>Jeffress marshals all kinds of bogus arguments to support his naked religious bigotry.</p>
<p>For example, he says that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids religious tests for public office, applies only to the government, not individual voters.</p>
<p>Jeffress is, I suppose, technically right about this. When you step into the voting booth, you can vote on the basis of all kinds of spurious considerations, including personal prejudices. You will have only your conscience to answer to, and as we know, some people don’t have very delicate consciences.</p>
<p>But Jeffress’ approach to voting is certainly in violation of the spirit of our Constitution and the vision of our nation’s Founders. Thomas Jefferson, a leading advocate of American religious liberty, said, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God.” Other Founders were equally broadminded, creating a nation where all citizens are equal regardless of their views about religion.</p>
<p>It goes without saying that Pastor Jeffress wouldn’t have voted for Jefferson for president. Or George Washington or James Madison or Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They weren’t “born again,” as far as we know, any more than most of our presidents have been, up until recently.</p>
<p>In a feeble attempt to recruit at least one Founder to his side, Jeffress rolls out John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the nation’s first chief justice. Jay, Jeffress recalls, said, “It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”</p>
<p>Unlike some fabricated quotes from the Founders that the Religious Right often wave about, this Jay observation is accurate. But I hardly think Mr. Jay is proper role model for 21st-century America.</p>
<p>Jay, like Jeffress, had a rather narrow definition of what religious liberty means or, for that matter, what the term Christian encompasses. Catholics, for example, weren’t included. In 1777 in the New York constitutional convention, he fought hard to exclude Catholics from the state’s religious liberty protection. His proposed amendment would have forbidden Catholics to own land or exercise civil rights unless they took an oath repudiating the “dangerous and damnable doctrine that the pope…has power to absolve men from sins.” (The proposal failed on a 19-10 vote.)</p>
<p>Jeffress has attacked the Catholic Church as a “cult-like pagan religion,” so I can see why he thinks John Jay was a swell fellow. But Jay was wrong about religious liberty. We weren’t a Christian nation then, and we aren’t one now. Rather, we are a nation where some 2,000 different religious groups and traditions thrive and where millions of Americans follow no spiritual path at all.</p>
<p>Now, I’m not going to be drawn into the question of which religions are true and which religions are false. All of us have opinions about that and, like Jeffress, we’re free to express them.</p>
<p>Where Jeffress goes so wrong, however, is melding his personal religious beliefs so tightly with his political actions. He’s a born-again Christian and believes evangelical Christianity is the one true faith, so he’s going to do his damnedest to get someone with his faith perspective into the White House.</p>
<p>Jeffress wants this, not because of simple affection for fellow believers, but because he thinks his man will impose that one true faith on all Americans through government action. In keeping with his beliefs, he hopes his candidate will ban all abortions, deny civil rights to LGBT Americans, wedge religion into the public schools, fund religious academies, appoint Supreme Court justices like Antonin Scalia and generally take a bulldozer to the wall of separation between church and state.</p>
<p>If Jeffress’ dream comes true, all of us who fail to meet his religious test will be second-class citizens in our own land.</p>
<p>Here’s the bottom line: A candidate’s beliefs about religion should only matter if he or she plans to push them through government action. If a candidate is committed to church-state separation, you don’t have to worry much about whether he nods toward Rome, Mecca or Salt Lake City when he prays. Or even Dallas.</p>
<p>And that’s why I thank Jeffress. These days, many leaders in the powerful Religious Right movement think exactly as he does, but they don’t have the temerity to say it out loud. Jeffress reminds us that there is a mean streak in the Religious Right that is deep and wide.</p>
<p>Americans who thought that Religious Right bigotry and sectarian zealotry died with Jerry Falwell now know better.</p>
<p>So keep preaching, Brother Jeffress. Every time you open your mouth, another alarmed citizen joins Americans United for Separation of Church and State.</p>
<p>I won’t say amen to your politicization of religion, but you’re educating a lot of people about the challenges we face as a nation. With men like you on the loose, we need church-state separation now more than ever.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/churches-and-politics">Churches and Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mitt-romney">Mitt Romney</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-the-presidential-race">religion and the presidential race</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-tests-for-public-office">religious tests for public office</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rick-perry">Rick Perry</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/robert-jeffress">Robert Jeffress</a></span></div></div>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:28:20 +0000Joseph L. Conn6159 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/amen-to-pastor-jeffress-why-the-dallas-bigot-is-doing-us-all-a-service#commentsSensible Separation: Dalai Lama Calls For Division Between Spiritual And Temporal Roleshttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sensible-separation-dalai-lama-calls-for-division-between-spiritual-and
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The Dalai Lama really gets it.</p>
<p>The Tibetan spiritual leader is in Washington, D.C., to lead a 10-day peace festival at a venue just a few blocks from Americans United’s national office.</p>
<p><em>The Washington Post</em> has been r<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dalai-lama-followers-gather-for-start-of-peace-festival/2011/07/06/gIQAAkhL1H_story.html">eporting</a> on the event. Yesterday the newspaper mentioned the Dalai Lama’s longtime support of the separation of church and state.</p>
<p>You may recall that the Dalai Lama<a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2011/07/dalai-lama-drops-tibetan.html"> gave up</a> his political and administrative powers as the head of Tibet’s government-in-exile in March. At yesterday’s peace festival, he said saw the “hypocrisy” of advocating for church-state separation as a religious leader while also being involved in official political and government matters.</p>
<p>“Now I can tell people religious institutions and political institutions must be separate,” he said. “My statement is now honest.”</p>
<p>I wish more heads of government in the United States could follow the Dalai Lama’s example. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is definitely one who should be taking notes.</p>
<p>Perry thinks it’s his role to act as both a religious leader and governor and has used his political power to <a href="http://www.au.org/media/videos/archives/2011/not-a-cowboy.html">sponsor</a> a fundamentalist Christian rally in Houston next month.</p>
<p>Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, who has said he will attend Perry’s rally, is another government official who could learn from the Dalai Lama. He’s crossed the church-state line from his first day in office, turning his swearing-in ceremony into a religious revival. And now, Brownback has <a href="http://blog.au.org/2011/06/27/faith-based-frenzy-kansas-governor-preaches-religion-as-solution-to-social-problems/">thrown his support</a> behind a state-funded, “faith-based” proselytizing program that he believes will help parolees stay out of prison.</p>
<p>Harrisburg, Pa., Mayor Linda Thompson can also take a page out of the Dalai Lama’s book. She recently <a href="http://blog.au.org/2011/06/22/misguided-mission-pa-mayor-leads-prayer-and-fasting-to-balance-the-budget/">organized</a> a prayer and fasting campaign to solve the city’s piling debt. Throughout her tenure as mayor, she’s continuously imposed her religious beliefs on her staff and the people of Harrisburg.</p>
<p>These are just the most recent church-state offenders. They think it’s appropriate to serve as both head of government and religious adviser. That doesn’t fly under our Constitution.</p>
<p>Our government leaders must stay neutral on matters of religion. If Perry, Brownback, Thomson and other elected officials want to preach, they need to rethink their line of work.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/churches-and-politics">Churches and Politics</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/dalai-lama">Dalai Lama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/linda-thompson">Linda Thompson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rick-perry">Rick Perry</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/sam-brownback">Sam Brownback</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/separation-church-and-state">Separation of Church and State</a></span></div></div>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:57:08 +0000Sandhya Bathija2542 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sensible-separation-dalai-lama-calls-for-division-between-spiritual-and#commentsReason In The Rotunda: Speaking Up For Church-State Separation In Minnesota’s Capitolhttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/reason-in-the-rotunda-speaking-up-for-church-state-separation-in-minnesota
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Every year around the National Day of Prayer (NDP) – which occurred last Thursday – Americans United gets really busy.</p>
<p>Media outlets and various interest groups want to hear our take on the government-mandated day to pray, which started in 1952 when Congress passed a federal statute ordering the president to declare a prayer day each year. (In 1998, the NDP was codified as the first Thursday of every May.)</p>
<p>Americans United opposes the NDP, not because we are against prayer, but because we do not believe government officials should be asking us to participate in an inherently religious exercise.</p>
<p>On Thursday, CNN quoted Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn, summing up AU’s stance.</p>
<p>When Congress in the 1950s decided to create a day for one kind of religious expression, said Lynn, it was improperly interfering with religion, which ought to be a personal matter.</p>
<p>“Many of us are frankly insulted that Congress thinks it needs to tell us what day to be particularly prayerful," Lynn <a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/day-of-prayer-observed-as-always-with-reverence-and-controversy/">observed</a>.</p>
<p>I said something similar on Thursday while speaking at the <a href="http://www.meetup.com/minnesota-atheists/photos/1375945/23191896/#23455371 ">Minnesota Atheists’ “Day of Reason” event</a> in the Minnesota State Capitol. I traveled to the Twin Cities to speak inside the rotunda while NDP events were going on outside.</p>
<p>My job was to talk about church-state separation and remind legislators and others that this country is made up of people from more than 2,000 different religious groups as well as those who follow no religious path at all. When government officials participate in the National Day of Prayer – which really only represents one faith tradition – they are turning their backs on their constituents who believe otherwise.</p>
<p>I told the 50-some people sitting in the rotunda that the NDP does not stem from our Founding Fathers’ vision. Thanks to heavy lobbying from Religious Right groups, the day has now been hijacked as another way to undercut church-state separation and promote “Christian nation” propaganda.</p>
<p>In state and local governmental buildings across the country, the National Day of Prayer Task Force organizes events where only Christians are welcome. The group, a private organization founded by Shirley Dobson, wife of James Dobson, <a href="http://www.au.org/homepage/features/archive/2011/04-ndp/whats-wrong-with-national-day-of-prayer.html?utm_source=au%2Bhomepage&amp;utm_medium=homepage%2Bbanner&amp;utm_campaign=Featured%2Bon%20homepage">requires</a> that its volunteers sign an evangelical statement of faith and makes sure that no non-Christian speakers step to the podium.</p>
<p>It hardly seems acceptable that our government officials continue to support the NDP, knowing that they are not only favoring one religious group, but that they are endorsing religion over non-religion.</p>
<p>Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed prayer proclamations. Jefferson would never issue them, stating that prayer is a religious exercise and should be left up to each individual. Madison, father of our Constitution, issued a few prayer proclamations during the War of 1812, but later wrote that he regretted it.</p>
<p>Americans United’s staff members are often called upon by different groups to talk about church-state separation and why it is good for both religion and government. Whether we are addressing a religious group or an atheist group, our message is the same: the Constitution prevents government from meddling in religious affairs and from religion creeping into our laws.</p>
<p>Standing up against government endorsements of religion is a cause that all Americans ought to share, regardless of where they stand on religion.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/day-reason">Day of Reason</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/government-endorsed-religion">government-endorsed religion</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/minnesota-atheists">Minnesota Atheists</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/national-day-prayer">National Day of Prayer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/prayer-proclamations">prayer proclamations</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/separation-church-and-state">Separation of Church and State</a></span></div></div>Mon, 09 May 2011 16:24:20 +0000Sandhya Bathija2518 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/reason-in-the-rotunda-speaking-up-for-church-state-separation-in-minnesota#commentsFundamental Error: KJV Resolution In Congress Should Be DOAhttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/fundamental-error-kjv-resolution-in-congress-should-be-doa
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Of all the things Congress should and could be spending time on, a resolution celebrating the influence of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is certainly not one of them.</p>
<p>Yet U.S. Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) and Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) have introduced a measure doing just that. In conjunction with the 400th anniversary of the King James Version, these members of the U.S. House have penned <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc112-38">H. Con. Res. 38</a>, which notes the “influence” the KJV has had on “countless families, individuals, and institutions” and “expresses…gratitude for the influence it has bestowed upon the United States.”</p>
<p>What’s more, the resolution claims that the “teachings of Scriptures, particularly read from the King James Scriptures, have inspired concepts of civil government contained in our founding documents, and subsequent laws.”</p>
<p>That’s a bit of a reach. Our laws are in no way based on any religious text. And, furthermore, it’s not the job of Congress to favor a religious view – particularly one from a group that believes President Barack Obama could be the Antichrist.</p>
<p>You read that right. A small Michigan-based non-profit called the <a href="http://www.biblenation.org/">Bible Nation Society (BNS)</a> came to Washington to lobby for this measure during the budget debate last month.</p>
<p>The society is an affiliate of the Immanuel Baptist Church in Corunna, Mich. It was founded by the congregation’s pastor, Douglas Levesque. In 2010, at the BNS “Bible in Culture” conference, Levesque revealed his conspiracy theory on why Obama could be the Antichrist.</p>
<p>According to<a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4539/group_behind_king_james_bible_congressional_resolution_thinks_obama_might_be_antichrist/"> Religion Dispatches</a>, Levesque claimed that Obama "twist[s] the word of God" and "the Antichrist Quotient goes up above and beyond for someone who would so blatantly attack the word of God." He added, "This man offends me, this man offends my God."</p>
<p>This is who members of Congress are taking advice from?</p>
<p>BNS Executive Director Jason Georges told Religion Dispatches that his group has no interest “promoting a theocratic state,” but just wants to alert our government officials that they could find answers to our nation’s problems in the King James Bible.</p>
<p>The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, rightfully thinks Georges is on the wrong track and hope Congress keeps its distance.</p>
<p>"The resolution is completely outside the realm of congressional expertise or interest," he told <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4539/group_behind_king_james_bible_congressional_resolution_thinks_obama_might_be_antichrist/">Religion Dispatches</a>. "It's mind-numbing to think that anyone would think about passing this at a time when we have fiscal, foreign policy and other matters of greater weight."</p>
<p>While the Bible Nation Society has every right to promote its ultra-fundamentalist religious perspective, it should not have the help of Congress. The House of Representatives returns today; members should absolutely not adopt this misguided resolution.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bible-nation-society">Bible Nation Society</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/congress">Congress</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/government-endorsed-religion">government-endorsed religion</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/house-reprentatives">House of Reprentatives</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/king-james-bible">King James Bible</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/nick-rahall">Nick Rahall</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-politics">Religion in Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/robert-aderholt">Robert Aderholt</a></span></div></div>Mon, 02 May 2011 18:24:58 +0000Sandhya Bathija2527 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/fundamental-error-kjv-resolution-in-congress-should-be-doa#commentsSlander From Santorum: Former Senator Once Again Proves That He’s No Jack Kennedyhttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/slander-from-santorum-former-senator-once-again-proves-that-he%E2%80%99s-no-jack
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Sen. Santorum, don’t think you can turn this country into a modern version of medieval Spain with iPods and Twitter. We won’t have it.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>We’ve criticized former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum on this blog <a href="http://blog.au.org/2010/09/08/absolute-separation-jfk%E2%80%99s-houston-speech-upheld-true-spirit-of-liberty/">before</a> for his poor understanding of church-state separation.</p>
<p>Santorum believes President John F. Kennedy was wrong when, in a famous 1960 speech, Kennedy vowed to be the president of all people and make his policy decisions not on the basis of what his Roman Catholic faith demanded but on the grounds of what was good for the country.</p>
<p>Here in part is what Kennedy said in his Sept. 12, 1960, <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2010/10/john-f-kennedy-on-religion.html">address in Houston</a>:</p>
<p>“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.</p>
<p>“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”</p>
<p>Good stuff, that.</p>
<p>Santorum disagrees. During a <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/03/santorum_possib.html">recent speech</a> in Newton, Mass., Santorum said he was “frankly appalled” by Kennedy’s statement, adding, “That was a radical statement [that did] great damage.”</p>
<p>Continued Santorum, “We’re seeing how Catholic politicians, following the first Catholic president, have followed his lead, and have divorced faith not just from the public square, but from their own decision-making process. Jefferson is spinning in his grave.”</p>
<p>To Santorum, I can only say: Look, it’s bad enough that you run around talking trash about Kennedy, but adding Jefferson to your Festival of Ignorance is just too much. Leave the man out of it. You apparently know nothing about him.</p>
<p>Jefferson spent his entire life opposing government-mandated religion and fought every member of the clergy who supported that foul idea. Here’s a famous example: During the election of 1800, presidential candidate Jefferson knew that many New England preachers were yearning to win favoritism for their faith from the federal government. He also knew that they hated him because they realized he would never let that happen. That’s why they spread wild tales about Jefferson being a libertine who, if elected, would burn Bibles.</p>
<p>Wrote Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, “The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, &amp; they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” (Those words might sound familiar; they’re carved on the Jefferson Memorial here in Washington, D.C.)</p>
<p>If anything is causing Jefferson to spin in his grave, it would be the machinations of people like Santorum, who want to mix church and state into a poisonous theocratic gumbo and force-feed it to the American people.</p>
<p>No thanks, Rick. We know all about the theocracies you admire so much. They don’t work because they crush human freedom. We found a better way: separation of church and state. Supporting that good old American concept is hardly “radical.” In fact, I’d say the real radicals are the ones who want to tear it down.</p>
<p>Believe what you want about religion, Rick. Pray, go to mass and engage in other religious activities of your choosing. But don’t think you can turn this country into a modern version of medieval Spain with iPods and Twitter. We won’t have it.</p>
<p>In his famous speech, JFK eloquently laid out a vision of freedom of religion for all in a country that did not presume to aid or hinder faith. The choice of whether to take part in a faith community is always yours. Santorum has made his vision clear as well. It’s one that crushes freedom under the heavy heel of government-sponsored religion.</p>
<p>I think I know which vision the American people prefer.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/fighting-religious-right">Fighting the Religious Right</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/benjamin-rush">Benjamin Rush</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/church-state-milestones">Church-State Milestones</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/jefferson-memorial">Jefferson Memorial</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-f-kennedy">John F. Kennedy</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-politics">Religion in Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rick-santorum">Rick Santorum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span></div></div>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:27:25 +0000Rob Boston2174 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/slander-from-santorum-former-senator-once-again-proves-that-he%E2%80%99s-no-jack#commentsPious Pandering: Ky. Politicians Are Using Religion To Appeal To Votershttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/pious-pandering-ky-politicians-are-using-religion-to-appeal-to-voters
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Is being a foe of church-state separation a prerequisite to being elected in Kentucky? How else can you explain all the work Kentucky government officials have done in the past two months to chip away at the church-state wall?</p>
<p>Yesterday, in the latest anti-separation move, the Kentucky Senate<a href="http://www.wlky.com/r/26818810/detail.html"> passed a measure</a> that would mandate creation of an official Bible curriculum for Kentucky’s public schools.</p>
<p>SB 56, which sailed through 34-1, directs the Kentucky Board of Education to create guidelines for a social studies elective on the Bible. (Kudos to Sen. Kathy Stein, a former AU National Advisory Council member and the <a href="http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/11RS/SB56/vote_history.pdf">lone vote against</a> the measure!)</p>
<p>State Sen. Joe Bowen introduced the bill this year. <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2010/04/okla-ky-legislators.html">Last year</a>, the same measure passed the Senate, but failed in the House – a scenario that (hopefully) may repeat itself this year.</p>
<p>“No doubt about it, the most important book ever written, and obviously, it's had so much influence on our society and all of Western civilization," Bowen said of the reason why he wants to ensure Kentucky students have a chance to learn about the Bible.</p>
<p>The courts have deemed that courses on the Bible may be taught in public schools, so long as they are taught from an academic perspective, not as a way to indoctrinate.</p>
<p>Bowen claims SB 56 is merely providing a roadmap for how teachers can successfully teach these courses. The measure states the board should create guidelines for a course on the Bible’s influence on “literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy.” It mandates that the course maintain “religious neutrality” and respect “the diverse religious views of students.”</p>
<p>But is this measure really about academics and “religious neutrality?” And what does Bowen mean when he intimates that the Bible has a role in “public policy?”</p>
<p>Sen. Tim Shaughnessy, who voted for the measure last year, took a “closer look” this year before deciding not to cast a vote at all. He said the legislation includes a provision that permits students to use their own texts for the course. That “throws academic credibility out the window,” he noted.</p>
<p>State. Rep. Reggie Meeks also criticized the Senate for pandering to conservative Christian voters.</p>
<p>"It's like waving meat in front of a dog, OK? You give them what they want," Meeks told a local news station.</p>
<p>You give them what they want – even if it comes at the Constitution’s expense – and the expense of religious minorities and nonbelievers who may not want their public schools promoting one faith’s sacred scriptures.</p>
<p>Gov. Steve Beshear also seems eager to cater to religious voters. He recently <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23868">apologized</a> to self-anointed “chaplain to the state capitol” Lee Watts for mistakenly denying Watts’ request to place a display in the state capitol of religious phrases wrenched from their original contexts in historical and governmental documents.</p>
<p>(Although referred to by both politicians and the media as a “legislative chaplain,” Watts is nothing of the kind. In fact, he’s just another Religious Right activist doing <a href="http://www.kbcpublicaffairs.org/2011/01/26/preachers-invited-to-state-capitol-on-feb-8/">everything in his power</a> to usher in a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. His “<a href="http://www.godandcountryministry.com/index.html">God and Country Ministry</a>” says America was “founded as a Christian nation, and she can be again, but it will take a new generation of patriots.”)</p>
<p>Initially, State Curator David Buchta, head of the Kentucky Division of Historic Properties, made the right call and denied Watts’ requests based on concerns about church-state separation. But Beshear’s office soon stepped in.</p>
<p>“We are disappointed in this misunderstanding,” said Kerri Richardson, a spokeswoman for Beshear. “We have advised Chaplain Watts that Mr. Buchta was incorrect, and the governor’s office is working with Chaplain Watts to post historical documents in the tunnel.”</p>
<p>But it doesn’t stop there. Kentucky legislators have also <a href="http://blog.au.org/2011/02/08/%E2%80%98science-guy%E2%80%99-speaks-out-bill-nye-says-nay-to-anti-evolution-crusade-as-bills-pop-up-in-the-states/">introduced an anti-evolution bill</a> this session, and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has <a href="http://blog.au.org/2010/12/20/state-plate-grates-kentucky-government-proposes-%E2%80%98in-god-we-trust%E2%80%99-license-tags/">unveiled a new standard-issue license plate</a> with the words, “In God We Trust.”</p>
<p>Beshear has also <a href="http://www.au.org/media/videos/archives/2011/aus-lynn-remarks-on-ark.html?utm_source=au%2Bhomepage&amp;utm_medium=homepage%2Bbanner&amp;utm_campaign=Featured%2Bon%20homepage">voiced his strong support</a> for the building of a creationist theme park featuring a full-scale replica of Noah’s ark – and lots of fundamentalist proselytizing. He has promised developers tax incentives to build in the Bluegrass State.</p>
<p>It’s clear Kentucky needs help. If you live in the Commonwealth, write to your state legislators and Gov. Beshear and let them know you want a strong wall between separation of church and state. The state has a lot of problems that need addressing; elected officials ought to focus on those, not meddling in religion.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religion-public-schools-and-universities">Religion in Public Schools and Universities</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-mottos-pledges-and-resolutions">Religious Mottos, Pledges and Resolutions</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bible-curriculum">Bible Curriculum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-buchta">David Buchta</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kathy-stein">Kathy Stein</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kentucky">kentucky</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kentucky-senate">Kentucky Senate</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/lee-watts">Lee Watts</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/reggie-meeks">Reggie Meeks</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/steve-beshear">Steve Beshear</a></span></div></div>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:04:04 +0000Sandhya Bathija2504 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/pious-pandering-ky-politicians-are-using-religion-to-appeal-to-voters#commentsCongress And Religion: Who Prays Where – And Why It Doesn’t Much Matterhttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/congress-and-religion-who-prays-where-%E2%80%93-and-why-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-much-matter
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life just released some interesting information about the 112th Congress.</p>
<p>Despite being vastly different politically from the 111th Congress, it’s not all that different religiously, according to Pew’s <a href="http://pewforum.org/Government/Faith-on-the-Hill--The-Religious-Composition-of-the-112th-Congress.aspx">analysis</a>. Nor are members’ religious affiliations much different than the general public.</p>
<p>The new Congress, like the previous one, is majority Protestant and about a quarter Catholic. Baptists and Methodists are the largest Protestant denominations in the new Congress, just as they are the largest Protestant denominations in the country.</p>
<p>Pew found that Buddhists and Muslims are also represented similarly in Congress as they are in the general population, but Congress has a greater representation of Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Jews. There are no Hindus and Jehovah’s Witnesses in Congress.</p>
<p>While these results are intriguing, they actually don’t mean much.</p>
<p>Some Baptists support keeping the government separate from religion, but some don’t. Some Catholics feel strongly for separation, but certainly not all.</p>
<p>It just goes to show that it’s not religious affiliation that is important, but rather whether someone has a commitment to uphold the Constitution. All elected officials have that duty, and that means they ought to support the separation of church and state, regardless of what they believe about religion.</p>
<p>Yesterday, members of the U.S. House of Representatives read the Constitution aloud on the House floor for the first time in history. We hope that House members – and their colleagues in the Senate – remember to uphold it when they’re crafting legislation.</p>
<p>As AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn <a href="http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Barry_Lynn/2011/01/constitutional_contrivance_house_leadership_goes_for_the_gimmick.html">wrote</a> for <em>The Washington Post</em> yesterday, maybe it will be a new day in America – with no government subsidies for religion, no reason for the government to tell us to pray on the National Day of Prayer and a Pledge of Allegiance that includes everyone.</p>
<p>If they take the Constitution seriously, we may actually be in luck.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/churches-and-politics">Churches and Politics</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/112th-congress">112th Congress</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pew-forum-religion-and-public-life">Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-beliefs-members-congress">Religious Beliefs of Members of Congress</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/survey">Survey</a></span></div></div>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:03:24 +0000Sandhya Bathija2496 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/congress-and-religion-who-prays-where-%E2%80%93-and-why-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-much-matter#commentsPeculiar Poll: Survey Examines Americans’ Thoughts On Religion And Politics http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/peculiar-poll-survey-examines-americans%E2%80%99-thoughts-on-religion-and-politics
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Americans seem rather confused when it comes to the issue of religion and politics.</p>
<p>At least that appears to be the case from survey results on the role of religion in the 2010 election. The good news is, most Americans didn’t vote based on their religious views. The bad news is, many Americans are strangely preoccupied with President Barack Obama’s faith and that plays a role in whether they like him or not.</p>
<p>The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), in conjunction with the Brookings Institution, <a href="http://www.publicreligion.org/objects/uploads/fck/file/AVS%202010%20Post-election%20report%20FINAL.pdf">released the survey</a> findings yesterday afternoon and held a panel discussion here in Washington about them.</p>
<p>Fewer than 10 percent of Americans said their religious beliefs were the biggest influence on their vote this year (although that number jumped to 20 percent among evangelical Christians). Seventy-three percent said common sense and personal experience affected their votes most. That’s good news; the last thing we need is a nation divided into religiously based voting blocs.</p>
<p>But when asked about Obama’s religious views, most Americans (51 percent) indicated that they felt their own religious beliefs were “somewhat different” or “very different” from the president’s. That’s somewhat odd, since Obama is a Christian and so are the majority of Americans.</p>
<p>But even more troubling, Americans’ views about this Obama’s religion correlated to how they felt about him. Of those who said they felt their beliefs were “very different” from his, 78 percent had an unfavorable view of the president.</p>
<p>This is disconcerting. It’s not just that a minority of Americans are wrongly convinced that Obama is Muslim, Americans as a whole seem to be judging the president based on his religious beliefs – something that is contrary to the spirit of our Constitution.</p>
<p>Our Founding Fathers made it clear in the Constitution that there will be no religious test to hold office, and Americans would be wise to remember that guiding principle when evaluating our leaders, especially in a country as religiously diverse as ours.</p>
<p>Some other interesting highlights from the survey include:</p>
<p>• A majority of Americans see religion as the solution for social problems. Fifty-six percent mostly or completely agreed with the statement, “If enough people had a personal relationship with God, social problems would take care of themselves.”</p>
<p>• A majority of Americans (58 percent) believe God has granted America a special role in human history.</p>
<p>• Most Americans (63 percent) said they are worried that the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality. (When George W. Bush was president, support for government action on moral issues was seven points higher.)</p>
<p>• Twenty percent of Americans say they “completely agree” that Islamic values and American values are at odds, while 22 percent “completely” disagree. Panelist William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, said this indicates that most Americans are unclear what to think about Islam, but if it remains a politically charged question, there is a “serious threat of further national division.”</p>
<p>I know that poll results depend on a lot of factors. How the questions are phrased makes a difference. So does the way in which respondents perceive the questions being asked.</p>
<p>To me, this poll shows that we Americans still haven’t fully thought through issues of religion and politics, democracy and diversity. It’s time we started doing so.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/barack-obama">Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/brookings">Brookings</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/election-10">Election &#039;10</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/elections">Elections</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/public-religion-research-institute">Public Religion Research Institute</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-public-life">Religion in Public Life</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/role-religion-2010-election">role of religion in 2010 election</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/survey">Survey</a></span></div></div>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:33:24 +0000Sandhya Bathija2485 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/peculiar-poll-survey-examines-americans%E2%80%99-thoughts-on-religion-and-politics#commentsRed Mass Mandate: Archbishop Advises High Court Justices About Religion And Government http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/red-mass-mandate-archbishop-advises-high-court-justices-about-religion-and
<a href="/about/people/bathija">Sandhya Bathija</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The fact that the mass goes on almost every year just as the high court is coming back in session is no coincidence.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Yesterday morning, I attended the Red Mass here in Washington along with five Supreme Court justices and Vice President Joe Biden. Okay, we weren’t in the same pew – they were in the front rows; I wasn’t.</p>
<p>But all of us heard Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, an American who now works at the Vatican, give a homily that instructed those in attendance on how they should feel about same-sex marriage, abortion and the dire threat of “humanism.”</p>
<p>This was my third visit to the Red Mass, which for more than 50 years has been held just before the Supreme Court comes back into session in October. In the past, the Sunday service at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle has <a href="http://blog.au.org/2009/10/05/critical-mass-justices-gather-in-dc-for-special-religious-service/">provided a rich opportunity</a> for the Catholic hierarchy to lobby the justices on controversial issues, and this year was no exception.</p>
<p>Di Noia, a Dominican theologian who now serves as secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has been outspoken about these issues before. In a December 2009 <a href="http://www.adoremus.org/1209EucharisticAdoration.html">essay for the <em>Adoremus Bulletin</em></a>, for example, he blasted “the emergence of an ideology of evil” that “inspires certain political leaders and even some democratic parliaments to initiate projects that are contrary to the identity and mission of the family, and, what is worse, contrary to the dignity of human life itself.” (That’s church-speak for opposition to abortion rights, civil marriage for same-sex couples and other policies that transgress Catholic doctrine.)</p>
<p>Di Noia also has a warm relationship with the Religious Right. In 1994, he joined with Chuck Colson, Richard Land, Pat Robertson and others in signing “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” That document was intended to paper over long-standing theological differences between conservative Protestants and Catholics and pave the way for common cause on political projects undermining church-state separation, reproductive choice and gay rights and advancing voucher aid to religious schools and more religion in public schools.</p>
<p>That’s why it didn’t come as much of a surprise that Di Noia would use his opportunity at the Red Mass pulpit to nudge his powerful congregants toward the church’s official position on abortion, gay rights and the place of religion in establishing government policy. After all, he had an audience that included Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas.</p>
<p>“Positive law,” he said, “rests on certain principles the knowledge of which constitutes nothing less than participation in the divine law itself: the pursuit of the common good through respect for the natural law, the dignity of the human person, the inviolability of innocent life from conception to natural death, the sanctity of marriage, justice for the poor, protection of minors, and so on.</p>
<p>Later, he argued that “the democratic state does not so much <em>confer</em> the most fundamental human rights and the duties of citizenship as <em>acknowledge</em> their existence and source in a power beyond the state, namely in God himself.”</p>
<p>Di Noia claimed that democratic societies are in danger of adopting the view that “man can find happiness and freedom only apart from God.”</p>
<p>“This exclusive humanism,” he said, “has been exposed as an anti-humanism of the most radical kind. Man without God is not more free but surely in greater danger,” adding that “the eclipse of God leads not to greater human liberation but to the most dire human peril. That innocent human life is now so broadly under threat has seemed to many of us one of the many signs of this growing peril.”</p>
<p>When you cut through the theological fog, DiNoia’s bottom line is this: abortion should be banned, gay people should be denied marriage rights and governmental policy should be based on religiously grounded concepts.</p>
<p>The archbishop didn’t deliver his views that bluntly because it might have caused a stir – and a political backlash. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg stopped attending the Red Mass a few years ago when a prelate blasted away against abortion rights a little too vigorously.</p>
<p>The fact that the mass goes on almost every year just as the high court is coming back in session is no coincidence. It’s apparent that the Catholic hierarchy uses this event as a way to try to direct governmental policy within the context of a worship service.</p>
<p>The U.S. Constitution separates religion and government, and the courts have the responsibility of upholding that principle. The Red Mass certainly doesn’t bolster that constitutional concept. Let’s just hope that this Supreme Court term we have justices who do.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/abortion">Abortion</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/antonin-scalia">Antonin Scalia</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/archbishop-j-augustine-di-noia">Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/clarence-thomas">Clarence Thomas</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-roberts">John Roberts</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/red-mass">Red Mass</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religion-and-politics">Religion and politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/same-sex-marriage">same-sex marriage</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/sameul-alito">Sameul Alito</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/stephen-breyer">Stephen Breyer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/supreme-court-0">the Supreme Court</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/us-supreme-court">The U.S. Supreme Court</a></span></div></div>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:49:10 +0000Sandhya Bathija2471 at http://www.au.orghttp://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/red-mass-mandate-archbishop-advises-high-court-justices-about-religion-and#comments